Underage Models

<p>I guess I could construct a hypothetical where this is a good idea but I'm having a hard time translating it to the real world. (Selling "sportswear" to teenagers is a huge business but is there such a thing as a lingerie catalog for teenagers and would it involve any need that can't be filled by an over-18 model? If you want to do studio lingerie shoots there's no shortage of over-18 models to hire.) I see plenty of reasons not to take a job like that and no real reasons to take it, whether or not it's technically legal.</p>

<p>If your real lucky you might only have to do a couple of years in the nearest jail to you:<br>

Like ever one else stated , run do not walk away:</p>

<p>If I understand right, but I'm sure I'm still wrong, when shooting a fifteen years old girl in her cotton panties we need a lawyer to protect ourselves against those that want to protect "our children" - even if her parents are sipping tea beside during the shooting. We live in a sick world !<br>

Maybe you are all right that we better advice to forget about it and invite her boyfriend to make the shooting.</p>

<p>Anders you don't understand it right. Firstly, you don't NEED a lawyer to do anything, apart from maybe to represent you if and when you are indicted - maybe unjustly - for child pornography. We do live in a "sick world" unfortunately and the sometimes overzealous enforcement of pornography laws reflects that. It's a no win situation for law enforcement, if they seem to overreach they get criticized and if their inattention or inaction allows a kid to be abused they get vilified. Why even get close to that kind of thing, why the need to shoot underage girls in ANY kind of compromising pose or attire?</p>

<p>I am the last person (truly the LAST) to be rallying for an over-protective, over-PC world, but I recognize that it's incredibly hard to get the balance right between protecting children and photographer's rights. If the pendulum has to swing too far in one direction though, I'd prefer the protection of kids to be the priority.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I could construct a hypothetical where this is a good idea but I'm having a hard time translating it to the real world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your world is fairly small. Go to istock photo or any stock agency and type in "teen underwear" in the search. Half the models that men drool over in Victoria Secret and Le Senza are teenagers that look 20. This thread is an eye opener for me. I can't believe some of the knee-jerk reactions while teens are used in sexy ad campaigns every day in North America Culture.</p>

<p>Are they not over eighteen teens though. I doubt this would be a photoshoot for a high profile company heavily lawered up company.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are they not over eighteen teens though. I doubt this would be a photoshoot for a high profile company heavily lawered up company.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>14 to 16 is normal, 18 is "to late". Think about it, there's only one way for a mid-teen to get to those photo-shoots for high profile companies. They certainly don't do it by dressing decent in all thier shoot before hand. Kate Moss and CK at 14 and nude on billboards was the epitome. It's all at your finger-tips. Cruise through model agencies on the web and look at comp cards, or like I said with stock photo agencies above, it's even more common. Like it nor not, 14 to 16 yr olds have the bodies that the industry uses. Photographers cover their butts with a model release, legal guardian present, and a third party that is over 18 ie make up artist.</p>

<p>Garrison you're missing the point. The original poster is not talking about a "sexy ad campaign" - he is not shooting for Victoria's Secret, he is not working through an established model agency with art directors and stylists - he is considering shooting a fifteen year old girl in lingerie for her portfolio. Apples and oranges.</p>

<p>Most of the models you are referring to are over 18, even if the look is supposed to be mid teen - and if not, they are supervised and booked through reputable agencies. I have shot a lot of kids for catalogues, ad campaigns and as part of families in lifestyle shots. It is always totally controlled, contractual, the parents are always on site to supervise and sign releases. You are confusing commercial, professional photography with a guy shooting a minor in lingerie for fun.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Garrison you're missing the point. The original poster is not talking about a "sexy ad campaign" - he is not shooting for Victoria's Secret</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you've missed my point. In order for a 16 year old model to climb to a point in her career and be in those "sexy ad campaigns", she has previously taken off almost all of her clothes before hand for photographers.</p>

<p>When is the last time you batted an eye at a teen in a photo wearing underwear for a Macy's advert? Probably never. Everyone is just assuming the worst here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No, I didn't miss that point at all. Generally a models portfolio - especially a minor - is built up by a reputable agency organizing test shoots with trusted, reputable photographers. The agencies understand the law, protect their models, make sure the parents are involved and know they are in a professional environment with hair, make up and stylists involved.</p>

<p>This is nothing of the sort. It's about a guy who has been approached by a fifteen year old girl to shoot her in lingerie. He wants to know if it's OK if a "friend" of hers is "in the room" and if she "brings an OK" from her mother! You are talking about a totally different situation than the one under discussion.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are talking about a totally different situation than the one under discussion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, that was two pages ago. We've since all wondered off topic together.</p>

<p>You're right John. My foul. I should have stated my stance before hand.</p>

<p>The chap who did the nudes of Brooke Shields when she was a kid---why wasn't he in trouble? Were the laws so different then?</p>

<p>No problem Garrison, you were right in everything that you said, it's just that the OPs situation is a little more potentially suspect than the usual model shoot.</p>

<p><<a guy shooting a minor in lingerie for fun>><br>

She would be paying me. You don't know me well enough to presume I'd do this for free or get "fun" from it. The danger, as you imply, is that jury members--although not knowing me either--might presume something similar. </p>

<p>True Red, I shouldn't have assumed that... either way I'd avoid it if I were you. If you think she has potential as a model I'd refer her to a reputable agency and let everything thereafter be well regulated and seen to be above board. </p>

<p>Isabelli Fontana worked for Victoria's Secret when she was 16 and I remember it being a big deal at the time because their policy had been to only use use 18-plus models. I remember a few years ago Miranda Kerr being their youngest model, just looked it up and she was 23 when she started. I can't find a source for the ages of all the current models but I did find a list for the "angels" models and the youngest currently is 20, a couple of the others are 21 and the oldest two are 29.</p>

<p>I'm not saying underage lingerie models don't exist, but it's not accurate that they're the norm. I still say stay away from it, unless you're really, really sure that you know what you're doing (legally, ethically and WRT her intent and her parents') and from the discussion it doesn't seem like that is the case.</p>

<p>If you are in the US, you are walking on very thin ice with golf shoes and potentially opening up a a very large can of legal worms. In many states, 17 is considered the age of reason, which is the very earliest I would even think of doing something like that. Of course, a model release should is an absolute necessity, as it is for ALL MODELS, regardless of age. For someone under 18 you need to use a <em><strong>minor model release</strong></em>, which must be filled out and signed by a parent or guardian.</p>

<p>It also leaves me wondering what kind of parents she has, who would permit their 15 year old daughter to pose half (or less) clothed in the first place.</p>

<p>I think she could not be paying nearly enough money to take that kind of risk, simply no way would I do it. If you want real legal advice I would call one of the juvenile judges in your area for an opinion. I would insist on a parent present and a video record with sound of everything that takes place. You could be being set up for blackmail etc. Teen age girl do lie and so do parents at times, you would be amazed at how stories change when you get to court. This could be a real bear trap.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Apropos art, rather than advertising, photography, the Jock Sturgis experience is somewhat echoed by that more recently of Jim Henson, whose exhibition was raided by the New South Wales police, carrying off a number of exhibits, at the behest of a morals crusader.</p>